2.2 Threats and strategies warrant long-term exclusivity to achieve conservation goals.

After conservation priorities and goals have been determined to be place-based or affected by place-based management, organizations should consider whether threats to the priorities require a conservation strategy that achieves long-term exclusivity over the site. If so, organizations then need to determine if they want to oversee the long-term exclusivity themselves.

Identifying threats and conservation strategies

Clear methods and defined terms can help when identifying threats and determining which strategies are most needed to protect conservation priorities at specific sites. The Nature Conservancy uses a systematic process called Conservation Action Planning. In addition, the World Conservation Union has developed standardized taxonomies of threats and actions that may be helpful to conservation organizations during site-specific planning activities.

As per Step 2.6 Owners and Agencies, researching the governing laws and legislatively prescribed “values” of relevant public agencies is important here. Many activities considered by conservation organizations to be threats—however valid—may represent agency “values.” Perceived attacks on agency values can cripple a proposal from the start. When this is the case, conservation organizations should be careful to describe threats in terms of specific undesirable (but correctable) practices and conservation actions, such as that best management practices, are developed and applied.

Is exclusivity needed or required?

Exclusivity is the ability to directly manage, exclude, or restrict activities and structures at specific sites. Some measure of exclusivity in and around a site may be needed to protect priority species, habitats, resources, and ecological processes from current and future harm; but exclusivity may not be needed when other uses and activities are compatible with the conservation goals identified for the site or when off-site threats are the cause of the site's vulnerability. If achievement of the conservation goals do not require complete elimination or partial restriction of other uses at a site, then exclusivity is likely not necessary.

Exclusivity can be achieved by different means depending on who owns the lands and resources, and what laws and policies apply to their management. Exclusivity can be direct (proprietary or market-based) or indirect (based on regulation or outreach), and the different means to achieve exclusivity are available with varying frequency, provide different levels of protection, and assure exclusivity with different degrees of surety. The accompanying figure identifies conservation strategies that may help achieve some level of exclusivity at sites. The figure also gives a summary of how common and effective the strategies may be. Specific circumstances in each state and country will affect the strategies and conclusions shown in the figure.

In general, direct strategies give conservation organizations more control and certainty over sites. Leasing publicly-owned lands and resources lying within ocean and coastal waters is an occasional opportunity that may give partial protection over sites with a full degree of certainty. In contrast, obtaining fee-simple ownership of privately-owned lands and resources is a common opportunity that may give full protection over sites with a full degree of certainty.

In any event, beware of institutional “values,” especially in the western states of the United States where there are strong concerns regarding the “lock-up” of public lands. This manifests itself both in legislation and public agency reluctance to draw the ire of certain constituencies and legislators. For these reasons, the need for exclusivity should be closely examined and—when deemed to be necessary and possible—not celebrated too exuberantly. The preponderance of such events can build resistance and resentment toward future projects.

Is leasing or ownership required?

Conservation organizations may wish to obtain direct management control over sites through the acquisition of proprietary rights (i.e., through leasing or ownership) under several scenarios:

• Organization requirements: Internal policies of conservation organizations may require long-term protection through property rights acquisition.
• Public and member expectations: The general public and members of the conservation organization may expect that their support leads to guaranteed long-term protection of sites and projects.
• Funder requirements: Funders may not provide project money if the site does not have long-term protection guaranteed by property rights.
• Landowner requirements: Laws and policies may require public landowners to lease or sell a site if it is "occupied" to the extent that other parties are fully or partially excluded from the site and/or public resources are used by private entities. Also, public and private landowners may want to rid themselves of liability or long-term management responsibilities associated with the site or project. If the project success is in question, landowners may want project proponents to ensure the maintenance of the site or the function of the project.

Conservation activities requiring leasing or ownership

Public or private landowners may require organizations to acquire or lease sites when conservation activities result in occupation of sites or inherently exclude (partially or fully) other potential users from sites. Such activities may include one or more of the following activities:

Inwater researchers. Photo courtesy Audubon California

• Installing and maintaining structures (including habitat structures);
• Preventing development;
• Preventing or managing extraction of resources; and
• Preventing or managing public uses

The following activities, undertaken alone, are less likely to exclude other potential users from sites but may still require some form of authorization, including leasing or ownership:

• Reintroducing animals;
• Remediating contaminated areas;
• Restoring habitat structures (e.g., oyster reefs) and plants; and
• Undertaking scientific research.

The remaining activities, undertaken alone or together, are not likely to exclude other potential users of sites and thus not likely to require leasing or ownership:

• Cleaning up debris;
• Educating and collaborating with adjacent landowners;
• Educating and outreach to the general public;
• Planning; and
• Scientific monitoring.

What activities can be excluded from sites?

Typical activities and structures that might be excluded or restricted from sites include, but are not limited to:

Aquaculture. Photo courtesy The Nature Conservancy

• Aquaculture;
• Commercial uses;
• Navigation;
• Non-water dependent uses;
• Over-water structures;
• Public access;
• Recreation;
• Resource extraction;
• Shoreline development and armoring;
• Transportation infrastructure; and
• Utility lines.

Some of the above listed activities and structures may be more difficult to restrict than others (e.g., navigation). Site-specific circumstances as well as applicable laws and policies will ultimately determine what activities can be excluded, how they can be excluded, and to what degree.